Edward Putnam: Judicial appointments are a closed shop they need an urgent dose of democratisation and accountability

Edward Putnam is an active member of the Sevenoaks & Swanley Conservatives and a joint chair of the local Young Conservatives.

The recent fiasco with the Sentencing Council’s attempt at forcing through two-tier guidelines has been doing the rounds lately.  The effort has been rightly condemned – even if it got going three years ago, and no one seemed to care then.  But what’s not being talked about nearly enough – the real shocker – is the fact that every single member of the Council was appointed by a Conservative Lord Chancellor at the time of writing.

Beverley Thompson, for instance, was appointed by David Gauke in 2018 following a fruitful career as a professional DEI activist, among other roles.  How’d the party of Burke’s organic society let her snag such an important role?  And to be clear, I’m not blaming Gauke or any other Lord Chancellor: I’m blaming the smoke and mirrors system that creates the illusion of choice where there is none.

The Sentencing Council’s judicial members are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, while its non-judicial members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice.

The Lord Chief Justice in question is nominated by the Judicial Appointments Commission and formally appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor; and the Judicial Appointments Commission is itself the ultimate quango, devoid of even the slightest hint of democratic accountability or legitimacy.

So those of us who favour a democratic approach to justice are hoping the two-tier controversy might prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and gives the right the resolve to fix this broken system when it returns to power.

For the interpretation of laws is just as political as the making of laws, and so it follows there should be just as much democratic control over the former as the latter.  And to be completely clear, ensuring that the law is applied in both letter and spirit does not count as undermining the rule of law.  Quite the opposite, it restores legitimacy to a mistrusted justice system.

It goes without saying that the usual suspects can be counted on to cry wolf at any attempt to loosen their vicelike grip on power in this country.  But what I’m proposing really isn’t that radical.

There’s nothing liberal or democratic about judges being appointed by a self-selecting clique of activist jurists, or an aloof quango being responsible for sentencing guidelines.

In Germany, the left’s favourite city on a hill, federal judges are chosen by a committee of federal MPs and state government delegates, while state judges are chosen by state MPs with some input from the local legal establishment.  If they can do it, why not us?

Our immigration troubles highlight the need for reform as well.  Dozens of countries are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, yet we are uniquely hamstrung.  The problem isn’t the Convention: It’s the way our courts overinterpret its reasonable protections to the point of insanity.  And the solution isn’t to leave the Convention – that’s the tail wagging the dog – but to restore sanity and common sense to our courts.

So reverse the Blairite reforms, and bring the selection of judges back under political-ministerial control.  Or in other words, go back to the tried and tested model Britian used for centuries before New Labour’s constitutional meddling.  We’ll never know how different things would be today if Blair’s changes had never gone through, but the next Conservative government can decisively change the future for the better by taking the bull by the horns and sorting things out.

While they’re at it – and this really is radical territory – the Conservative government of tomorrow could apply the same reformist agenda to the rest of the state.

Make council officers genuinely subordinate to elected councillors and the residents they serve.

Increase private sector competition in the Civil Service, and give ministers the right to fire committed obstructionists.

Integrate quangos into ministerial departments and reassert political authority over their conduct.

Make the License Fee voluntary so the BBC is compelled to spare a thought for what its audience wants.

I could go on.